LearninginAction
Let’s talk structure — not the kind with scaffolding and blueprints, but the kind that quietly holds up your entire learning function.
In a recent targeted study of learning and development (L&D) professionals, TGaS Advisors asked a deceptively simple question: How is your learning function structured, and what’s driving those choices?
The insights, gathered from a diverse mix of mid-sized and large organizations, reflect real-world challenges and strategies shaping today’s learning functions. Together, they offer a broad lens on how learning teams are navigating structure today.
Let’s start with the big picture. Most participating organizations reported using a federated model for their learning function. And for many, it’s not new; this structure has been in place for years.
The popularity of the federated approach isn’t accidental. It reflects a conscious effort to balance enterprise-level consistency with business unit autonomy. In plain terms: The enterprise learning team sets the standards, provides shared tools and ensures alignment across the organization, while embedded learning teams within business units have the flexibility to meet local or functional needs.
It’s not quite centralized, not quite decentralized. It’s the hybrid that, for now, feels just right. (Figure 1)
When asked what led their organizations to adopt their current structure, companies pointed to three key drivers:
The need to standardize learning programs.
The push for faster decisionmaking.
The value of autonomy within business units.
The picture that emerges is one of intentional balance. Companies want consistent quality and outcomes, but they also need learning teams to move quickly, pivot when needed and stay aligned to their business partners. (Figure 2)
Even among those currently using a federated model, change has been a constant. A notable number of organizations reported shifting their structure within the last three years, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes through major reorganizations.
What’s behind these moves? Three major catalysts stood out:
Changes in leadership: A new chief learning officer or executive can bring a new vision and structural philosophy.
Budget pressures: Financial constraints often lead to consolidation or reassessment of resources.
Need for scalability and alignment: As portfolios grow and business priorities evolve, learning teams need to pivot and keep pace.
These shifts aren’t just administrative. They reflect a deeper recalibration of how L&D supports the business. Structure is responsive not static. And L&D teams are being asked to realign not just when it’s convenient, but when the need of the business demands it. (Figure 3)
What, then, are teams actually gaining from their current structures? For those in federated models, the benefits are clear:
Smarter supplier usage and tighter budget oversight.
More collaboration across training teams and functions.
Greater learning effectiveness thanks to better alignment.
Standardization with flexibility, allowing best practices to scale.
But here’s where the friction creeps in. The most reported challenge: unclear ownership. When responsibility is shared across multiple stakeholders, things can fall into the gray zone. Decision-making slows. Governance gets murky, and teams end up spinning their wheels trying to figure out who’s accountable for what.
One respondent summed it up like this: “Too many cooks, not enough coordination.”
It’s not just federated models that face growing pains. Fully decentralized teams reported challenges like underfunding and a lack of alignment across the enterprise. In one case, decisions about training resources were made without input from the business, ultimately, leading to major gaps in capability building.
Meanwhile, highly centralized teams often found themselves stretched thin. One team with only two full-time L&D professionals relied heavily on matrix partners and subject matter experts during growth phases. It worked — but raised questions about long-term scalability.
If this case study revealed anything, it’s that structure should serve your strategy — not dictate it.
The federated model may be the frontrunner, but the real story is about adaptability. The best L&D teams aren’t just choosing a structure and sticking with it; they’re iterating, re-evaluating and making bold decisions based on what their learners and businesses actually need.
Whether you’re trying to get a handle on governance, pushing for more business alignment or rethinking the way learning teams are resourced, take heart: You’re in good company. Everyone’s navigating this balancing act. The key is being intentional about how you shift, and honest about what’s working and what’s not.
Because at the end of the day, structure isn’t just a design choice. It’s the foundation that supports everything we do in L&D.
Tiffanie Alferman is learning & development director for TGaS Advisors, a division of Trinity Life Sciences. Email Tiffanie at talferman@trinitylifesciences.com or connect through linkedin.com/in/tiffjlee.
